By the way, here is a link on NASA's forecast that the American Southwest and the Great Plains will almost CERTAINLY experience a mega-drought at some point this century. The Dust Bowl of the 1930's was NOT a mega-drought. It lasted a mere decade. A mega-drought lasts for at least three decades.

Hawaii is one of our states -- it's part of America. Are you suggesting that we had no right to have a naval base in our own country?

Besides, that I used this example only to show what is able to happen if someone is only half a realist and is doing nothing to help himself, is Hawaii since 1959 a part of the USA. World war 2 started 20 years before and ended in 1945.

Too bad that Japan thought that an unprovoked attack upon our country was a good idea.

That's exactly what I said: You provoked this attack and did the same nothing to protect your fleet (and the citiziens of the USA in general). The racist war propaganda afterwards about the "treacherous Japanese" helped the politicians of the USA not to be seen as traitors on their own.

It was a dumb idea to drag us into a war that we didn't want to be in. They got their asses kicked. Sucked to be them.

Well spoken, imperial racist.

*I post videos on FB and almost NO ONE ever "likes" them. Unless you are dating someone, it's unlikely that they are going to watch your video. Just sayin.

Nice that you live in fear someone in the USA could not love a German weasel. Nevertheless: How is the US-American waste of energy able to help all life on planet Earth?

^^^^^ This guy thinks the U.S. military, the Pentagon, and the Defense Department are all brain-washed! ^^^^^^

I fear this is indeed true. If they are not only brainwashers then they are perhaps even brainwashed brainwashers believing in the own lies. Such people are extremely dangerous. Who thinks he is able to solve the problems of the world with military power is more wrong than only wrong. A little burp of mother nature - and that was the end of all life on planet Earth. We would need an unbelievable gigantic might and power in a fight with mother nature - and the same time the ability never to use this might. As long as we are not able to correct our mistakes we should not be as criminal to destroy the life of our children and grandchildren by doing now the wrong decision not to fight against the current climate change, which we cause on our own.

Again, take note that I'm not pushing for the mirror image of your position. I'm not saying that we should read liberal propaganda sites in order to find a curated selection of a handful of climate papers that argue that the consensus position is much too conservative. That would be the equivalent of what you're doing, but in the opposite direction. Instead of cherry-picking a few studies that we think bolster our arguments, I'm arguing we should instead look to the larger meta-analyses, which integrate both the more conservative papers, of the sort you like, and the more liberal ones, and everything in between, to give us the best available view of where the scientific understanding stands today.

The truth is in pudding. Just watch and wait. This is no exersize in deductive reasoning, it will present itself.
It's actually over, nothing can change what will happen.
South Florida will cease to exist.

I think it's a mistake to be fatalistic about it. Although it's true that much of the harm is already locked in, every day our decisions influence how quickly the change will come, and how bad things will get before they stabilize. The best analogy I've come up with is to obesity. I had a morbidly obese relative who refused to diet or exercise. Her excuse was that the damage was already done, so there was no point in worrying about it. But that was just a way to excuse her self indulgence. If she treated it as a done deal, she didn't have to put in the effort to eat better and exercise. But it wasn't a done deal. Although there was certainly permanent harm she'd already caused, and she was never going to live as long and as well as she would have if she'd never gotten fat, she had ample opportunity to make a change. She could have lived much longer and better than she did, with a little effort. In a similar sense, we earthlings are going to suffer for the bad decisions we've already made when it comes to our environment. But it would be a mistake to excuse our self indulgence by saying there's nothing we can do about it now. There are a huge range of possible futures out ahead of us, which we are choosing among every single day. In some of those, things will be manageable for most individuals and for the society as a whole, even though there will be some serious trouble spots (like South Florida). In others, we'll be looking at a hell-scape. In some scenarios, we'll have a couple centuries to adapt gradually to the worst of it. In others, it'll come on in just a few generations -- far outpacing our ability to adapt efficiently. We get to choose.

By the way, here is a link on NASA's forecast that the American Southwest and the Great Plains will almost CERTAINLY experience a mega-drought at some point this century. The Dust Bowl of the 1930's was NOT a mega-drought. It lasted a mere decade. A mega-drought lasts for at least three decades.

Again, take note that I'm not pushing for the mirror image of your position. I'm not saying that we should read liberal propaganda sites in order to find a curated selection of a handful of climate papers that argue that the consensus position is much too conservative. That would be the equivalent of what you're doing, but in the opposite direction. Instead of cherry-picking a few studies that we think bolster our arguments, I'm arguing we should instead look to the larger meta-analyses, which integrate both the more conservative papers, of the sort you like, and the more liberal ones, and everything in between, to give us the best available view of where the scientific understanding stands today.